Loading...
11-24-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 2020 INDEX Site Plan No. 80-2019 The Addiction Care Center of Albany 2. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 302.6-1-63 Site Plan No. 41-2020 William & Kathleen Bosy 3. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-16 Site Plan No. 50-2020 Stewart’s Shops Corporation 9. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.13-1-65 Site Plan No. 51-2020 Peter Sheehan (Co-Trustee) 11. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-20 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning thth Board meeting for Tuesday, November 24, 2020. This is our second meeting for November, our 17 th meeting this year and our 13 meeting held under the COVID guidelines unfortunately. I need to let folks know that our normal media availability is not available tonight. So our meeting will not be broadcast. So our public hearings will be conducted on an in person basis. If you note the red exit signs, in the case of an emergency that is our way out. If you have an electronic device, cell phone or other device, if you would turn the ringer off or shut it down we would appreciate that so it doesn’t disturb our meeting. There are public hearings for each of the items on our agenda tonight, with the exception of the administrative items, so we’ll deal with that as we go through. Part of our COVID protocol is when you come up to address the Board at the podium, when you’re done if you would take one of the sanitary wipes and clean the microphone off for the next speaker we would appreciate that. For Board members, I’ll have a brief review of next month’s meeting at the end of tonight’s meeting, and before I forget, I just wanted to wish everybody a Happy Thanksgiving. So moving along we have a couple of administrative items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS VOTE FOR ADOPTION OF 2021 MEETING CALENDAR MR. TRAVER-The first is the approval of a draft meeting calendar for the Planning Board for 2021 and that was supplied to all of you by e-mail and also in the hard copies that we received. I reviewed it and it seemed fairly similar to the layout that we had this year. I didn’t see any concerns. It was good that Laura had scheduled the potential for third meetings during the growing season. We needed that from time to time, but does anyone have any comments or concerns about the proposed agenda for 2021? No? Okay. We have a draft resolution I think approving that calendar. Is that correct? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Why don’t we go ahead and do that. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING BOARD CALENDAR FOR 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE CALENDAR YEAR 2021 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-The next item is a request for a one year extension. We’ve seen this before. Again, this is another first request. We approved, this is for the Addiction Care Center of Albany, Site Plan 80-2019 which we approved just last year. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) SITE PLAN 80-2019 THE ADDICTION CARE CENTER OF ALBANY REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION KEITH STACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And we did receive the letter in our packet regarding the request and the reason for the extension. MR. STACK-My name’s Keith Stack. I’m the Executive Director of the Addiction Care Center of Albany. The project’s progressing along. We were delayed due to COVID related delays. We had anticipated th closing on the property in April of this year. That was delayed until June 19. So we purchased the th property June 19 . The sellers requested two months to vacate the building. The orthopedic doctors had to move out the x ray equipment. They had to wait for the space they were moving in to to become available. Then they had leased that space to a physical therapy practice, and they had to close out their thth appointments through August 19. So the owners were still occupying the building until August 19. We are progressing well with the design and development of the construction bid documents. We had a video conference with the two State agencies that are involved in the project, the Dormitory Authority and the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, and our architect this morning, we’re going to be th submitting the 60% drawings on December 11. Then DASNY and OASIS will comment on those. We th anticipate submitting the 100% documents January 11 of this year and the time line is to put the project out to bid before the end of February. So we’re a few months late, but the project is progressing well at this point. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I heard you mention DASNY. This is Dormitory Authority funded? MR. STACK-No. OASIS is funding it, but the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services contracts with DASNY to be their project manager. So the architects and engineers at DASNY review the project designs to make sure they’re compliant with the State regulations and State building code. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. MR. STACK-Kind of an involved process . MR. TRAVER-Yes, it sure is. MR. MAGOWAN-It sounds it. MR. STACK-Yes. Basically it’ll be much like 79 Glenwood. It’s a relatively straightforward project but it’s just the process. It’s good. A lot of engineers are architects have their eyes on the project, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well thank you for that background and that explanation. MR. STACK-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? It’s fairly straightforward. It’s their first request. All right. If there are no concerns on that request, we have a draft resolution in our packet. RESOLUTION APPROVING ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP 80-2019 ADDICTIONS CARE CENTER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to alter the interior of the existing 6,870 sq. ft. building for a 21 bed men’s residential health related facility. The interior alterations to include residential rooms, office areas, kitchen area, dining and lounge area, counselor room and laundry area. The plans indicate new signage, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new use for existing commercial building shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 80-2019 on December 17, 2019. Applicant is requesting a one year extension. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 80-2019 THE ADDICTIONS CARE CENTER OF ALBANY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 24 day of November 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Next we move to our regular agenda. The first section is Tabled Items, the first item being William & Kathleen Bosy, Site Plan 41-2020. TABLED ITEM SITE PLAN NO. 41-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY. AGENT(S): JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 53 ASSEMBLY POINT RD. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME OF 2,537.3 SQ. FT. FAR AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,776.5 SQ. FT. FAR. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 384 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE, INSTALLATION OF NEW LAWN AREA, PATIO AREAS AND DRIVEWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050, & 179-8-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND SHORELINE BUFFERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEPTIC ALTERATION 2019 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-16. SECTION 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050, 179-8-040 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This is the revised application. At the meeting of the Zoning Board they had made some amendments to the home. So the home now is a 2,537.3 square feet. The new home is 2,776.5. These are the floor areas. The project still includes the construction of a 384 square foot detached garage, in addition the installation of new lawn area, patio areas and driveway. The variance that was granted included site plan review for permeability as well as floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I saw we received by e-mail a signoff, I believe a signoff letter from the engineer. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper. Bill Bosy is here to answer questions as well. So as Laura said, we were here in September and the Board recommended approval of the variances. We went to the Zoning Board in October, and this was never a large house. It’s a moderate house on a small lot, an existing lot, a camp building that badly needs to be replaced and this would be their permanent retirement home. So the Zoning Board asked us to reduce it after the first meeting, and we went back and the floor area request was reduced by three percent. Again, it was never a big house but because it was a small lot, it seemed like a lot. This Board recognized that, but the Zoning Board asked us to reduce it. The changes were that the house was moved back to comply with the 50 foot setback. About 300 square feet were removed to get it down to 29.1 FAR, which includes which would have been a fourth bedroom upstairs was removed to a three bedroom, and the rooms downstairs were made smaller. So about 300 square feet on the first floor, 210 square feet on the top floor. Substantial landscaping was added, and we’ve gone through a round with Chazen and as Laura said it’s not often the case but we got a signoff letter from Chazen before we got back here before you tonight. The one thing that changed was that the parking area by the road, and all of the construction is away from the lake. It’s all towards the road. That parking area by the road we had at first gone in proposing permeable pavers for the parking area, but Chazen came back and said because of the proximity to the septic system, leach field that that had to be conventional asphalt. So we did change that and the Zoning Board approved that. When we were at the Zoning Board, the Waterkeeper appeared and asked us to take a look at the landscaping and make sure that it’s compliant with the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-When you say landscaping you mean the shoreline buffer, right? MR. LAPPER-The shoreline buffer. And I know that he submitted a letter and we talked to Laura about it . The plan itself references the section of the Code and that number of plants. The two cedars are being retained. One cedar is being removed because it’s leaning on the house, and that’s part of the plan, and a new maple tree is being planted and a whole bunch of shrubs. So the Code section cited right on the plan with all of the number of plants I believe that it complies, and that was certainly the goal here to comply. So it’s a better project than when we were here in September and the Zoning Board unanimously approved it and there you are. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-I have a question. The original wastewater treatment design was for four bedrooms, yet, I think, you’ve decreased the number of bedrooms to three. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Will you keep the design as original? MR. LAPPER-So he already got that approved and it’s already been installed. So it’s already there. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So it’s a better system than it needs to be. MR. SHAFER-So it’s designed for four bedrooms. Jon, I had another question which is on the survey map it shows an eight foot easement on the south property line. Can you explain that? MR. LAPPER-I’m looking for the survey. MR. SHAFER-Yes, this survey. It obviously relates to the practical setback as opposed to the measured setback. There’s a note on the survey, sort of lower right hand corner MR. MAGOWAN-Is that the right of way for the egress, the ingress and egress easterly, former highway bounds? Is that what you’re talking about? MR. SHAFER-Yes, that note. MR. LAPPER-I’m looking at the survey, kind of too small for me to read. MR. SHAFER-Here, Jon, you’re welcome to look at this. MR. LAPPER-Bill, do you know about that from when you purchased it? MR. SHAFER-Does that have any bearing on anything? MR. LAPPER-Do you know anything about this, right of way for a neighbor? MR. MAGOWAN-It seems to be four foot on either side of the line. MR. LAPPER-I mean it’s probably something that was in the title from prior development, which is pretty typical of Lake George on small lots that neighbors granted each other rights, but I didn’t look into that, but the only issue is whether we would be putting something there to impede it and we won’t. If you look at the site plan that whole side is pretty open. So it wouldn’t be an issue if somebody had rights. MR. SHAFER-Yes, the side yard setback is eight and a half. MR. LAPPER-Right, four feet on either side of the line. MR. SHAFER-You’ve still got four and a half. MR. HUNSINGER-I did have a question on your landscaping plan, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And I just found it a little confusing. I did see the reference to the Code as you mentioned, but then there’s also a reference, maintain existing 15 foot wide vegetative buffer, and the Code requires, and you even spell it out below, a 35 foot width. So I found that a little confusing. It’s on Drawing A-1.2. MR. LAPPER-My understanding is that within the buffer area you don’t have to plant every square foot of it, so that the amount of plant material is correct. There is a grade change where it drops down towards the lake and there are three trees and a whole bunch of shrubs. So I believe it’s compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So you’re saying, in effect, that the pre-existing 15 foot buffer is going to remain and that’s being supplemented? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So that it is compliant with the 35 foot width. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Like I said, I just found that confusing. MR. TRAVER-It is confusing, yes, I had the same question. Other questions, comments? MR. DIXON-I have a quick one. I may just be missing it, but this house is on well water, isn’t it? But I don’t see the well on the plans. BILL BOSY MR. BOSY-Lake water. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so there’s no well. MR. DIXON-That makes sense. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing. I believe it remains open from the last time we heard this application, but the public hearing is open. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We’d like to recognize the improvements, the water quality improvements the applicant has made with the new septic system as well as stormwater management. We did express concerns at last week’s Zoning Board meeting regarding the site permeability variance. We understand the conflict with Chazen’s comments and encourage the proposed shoreline buffer to be compliant with Town Code. We feel the buffer should comply with the regulations of the Town Code regarding the effective width. The buffer is concentrated along the side property line. It’s up there, and along the house which allows the lawn to encroach into that 35 foot buffer, really creating a wedge into there making it less effective. This is contrary to the purpose and intent of the shoreline buffer section of the Code because shallow rooted grasses fail to protect water quality due to the minimal ability to filter nutrients with shallow roots as well as not being effective in allowing infiltration. It is our opinion that the requirements of that section of the Code must not be considered guidance. It is imperative that all applications follow the requirements of the Code to protect Lake George, which is being greatly impacted by nutrient loading and runoff contributing to the harmful algae bloom that we recently had. Again, they may have the right number of plants, but it’s not laid out properly and it will be ineffective. Plants along the building will not prevent runoff going down to the lake. We also offered them to consider the use of grass pavers instead of the asphalt pavement. This is really a plastic grid reinforced turf, and it could be put offset from the entrance to the garage, just to reduce some of the proposed impervious cover. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? MRS. MOORE-Just to let you know, the only public comment that’s in the file is from Chris. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So you heard the comment. It seems that there’s a sense that there were a lot of improvements made on the site. The question I guess is the landscaping that’s on the side, could that sort of be swung around so that it’s between the house and the lake as opposed to between the house and the neighbors? MR. LAPPER-So if you look at the landscape plan, the maple, the cedars and there is actually, you know, between the maple and the cedars there are a bunch of plants that are right in front. I mean there is a grass area, but there’s not, this is a small lot and there’s not much usable land there for the family, and I think that they’ve honored the Code and put in good sized trees, and there are seven along that front area, when it gets down closer to the lake. So I think that it does comply and the plan shows there’s two stormwater drywells between the house and the lake as well. So I think all things considered they did a really nice job in what they have there, but they do need a little bit of land for use in the front, on the lakefront. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments, response from Board members on public comment and the applicant’s response? MR. MAGOWAN-If I remember correctly those are retaining walls there that you have down there, right? You have a solid seawall. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And then you have a step back to that would be the north side there. You have two, two more retaining walls, and then you have one that comes across and goes underneath the walk over to the upper deck and then your concrete steps. That’s not a shoreline buffer, but then on the other hand, too, it is stopping the water from flowing right into the lake and pushing it to go down. Even though it’s not in our Code, and I’m not an engineer on that aspect, but I see it as a concrete retaining wall stopping the flow of a sheet of water, and the only way it can go is down where you’re going to get a filtration. And if we force them to plant trees over there, the trees are just going to enlarge the root and grow and pull that retaining wall apart. I feel we’re adequate with what we have there, being a small lot, and trying to treat the water closer to the house, and with the planting off to the side and with the gutter catching that pushing the water aside, but that’s just my opinion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other thoughts? The buffering seems to be the main remaining issue. MR. DEEB-I think what we have here is a matter of interpretation is what we’ve got, and I think if we could find a little bit of a compromise in here somewhere. I know he doesn’t want to use all his landscaping. MR. LAPPER-If you look at the front, there are actually seven shrubs in between where the large trees are, two on the bottom, two in the middle, then two and one on top. So there is a shrub area on that front level in between the house and the lake, closer to the lake. MR. DEEB-All right. I don’t know, I just thought if a little something more could have been done it would be more palatable for me, but again, that’s my opinion. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. TRAVER-Other comments? MR. MAGOWAN-Is there any possible way of getting some more plantings on the other side of that, right about there where it starts dropping off at the 328, where we have the, you know, some shrubs to help absorb the. MR. LAPPER-So that’s where I was pointing out that there are seven right at that line. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but you’ve got that open space in between. The water’s going downhill and not off to the side. I mean if we could plant a couple right along or just on the other side of the squares. MR. TRAVER-Could you show him where you mean. MR. MAGOWAN-Right here. I’m happy over here with the retaining walls, but here you’ve got the 328, you know, you’ve got a five foot drop down to the lake, depending on how high the wall is down here, or if you could just grab a couple of plantings, just a low shrub. Is that a good compromise? MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, if we moved a couple of shrubs closer to the lake, is that okay? MR. MAGOWAN-Add a couple of more. MR. BOSY-From the top of that hill down to the water it’s all, there’s like 30, 40 hostas in there. They’re not on the plan. That whole thing is, the Landry’s put all that in there. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I guess we ought to get you on the mic to make sure this is all part of the minutes. So obviously we’re discussing the planting plan and the shoreline buffer. Fifteen feet now. MR. BOSY-That’s approximately 10 to 15 feet and it’s all full of hostas. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I don’t know if you can see. What we were talking about is adding some additional buffering in this area. MR. MAGOWAN-You’re saying the hostas are here? MR. BOSY-Yes, exactly. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) MR. MAGOWAN-And that’s a hearty plant. MR. BOSY-What would you like to see in here? MR. MAGOWAN-Really some just, for me, for a compromise, you know, a lower shrub. MR. LAPPER-So remove some of the hostas and put in shrubs? MR. MAGOWAN-No, no, right in front of the hostas, you know what I’m saying. MR. BOSY-Up above, towards the house. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. Just where you’ve got the three squares. What are those? MR. BOSY-There actually is some kind of planting there now, but they’re not very adequate, but I can do that. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean like maybe, what are the seven, what are the seven plants? MR. LAPPER-They’re not specified. It says native shrubs, on the Queensbury list. MR. TRAVER-So how many would you like them to add to that? MR. MAGOWAN-Well that’s a compromise. MR. TRAVER-So let’s say if they put the same type, proposed native shrubs, say three maybe in this area. MR. MAGOWAN-Three or four, yes. MR. LAPPER-On top of the hill. MR. BOSY-Like a boxwood or something like that? Is that what you’re talking about? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, something low that’s not going to obstruct your view, and well maintained and blends in nice with your landscaping. MR. BOSY-We do have, like I said, the hostas there, but the darn deer come every night and they’ve chewed them all up to nothing. I’ve got to find something that they won’t eat. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, once the cold weather the hostas aren’t there anymore. I mean those leaves just die off, but then next year they come in bushier, but I know the deer do love them. MR. BOSY-Well I don’t have a problem with that. So if that’s what it takes. MR. MAGOWAN-So four trees. MR. LAPPER-Four shrubs. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that a good compromise? MR. TRAVER-I think so. Does everybody feel comfortable with that? All right. So we’d be looking at adding four proposed native shrubs in the vicinity of the. MR. LAPPER-I would say in front of the red maple. MR. TRAVER-Yes. In front of the three inch proposed red maple. In a line parallel to the shoreline. Anything else? MR. DIXON-Before you leave the podium, one of the other questions that was just discussed as well, too, was the asphalt up by the garage, if something other than using asphalt was an option. MR. LAPPER-Because it’s going to be a year round house it has to be plowed and what Chris is proposing is really something that you put on your grass to make the grass stable so you can drive over it, but for a parking area that’s going to have to be maintained and if you plow the lawn there, it’s just going to be a mess. Chazen, their signoff letter, required that we do asphalt in that area. So we’ve got to stick with what Chazen wanted and it’ll just be a lot more attractive the rest of the year. MR. DIXON-Okay. Would pavers? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) MR. LAPPER-That would be the same as, it would be permeable and it’s too close to the septic leach field to have anything that’s permeable. MR. DIXON-Right. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right. We have a proposed resolution, I think. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 41-2020 WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Revised: Applicant proposes to demo existing home of 2,537.3 sq. ft. FAR and to construct a new home of 2,776.5 sq. ft. FAR. The project includes construction of a 384 sq. ft. detached garage, installation of new lawn area, patio areas and driveway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050 & 179-8-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and shoreline buffers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 09/15/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 11/18/2020; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/22/2020 and continued the public hearing to 11/24/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/24/2020; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 41-2020 WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, s. snow removal 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) The applicant is to include 4 additional native shrubs to the planting plan – the 4 native shrubs to be planted in front of the maple, parallel to the shoreline (between the shoreline bank and the maple) th Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 24 day of November 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is under Old Business, and the first item is Stewart’s Shops Corporation, Site Plan Modification 50-2020. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 50-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 1002 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SITE PLAN MODIFICATION TO PLACE A 280 SQ. FT. GENERATOR SHED AT REAR OF PROPERTY, RELOCATING THE 10’ X 10’ SHED TO ONE PARKING SPACE. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 4,929 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND A 2,560 SQ. FT. FUEL CANOPY – NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50-2009, AV 47- 2009, 2010-241 BANK, 2014-648 ALT., 2010-075 GAS TANKS/CANOPY, AV 40-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2020 SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 1.46 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-65. SECTION: 179-9-120 CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for a 280 square foot generator shed. They received their setback variance for the rear property line. So they’re back before the Board tonight. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. POTTER-Chris Potter from Stewart’s. We received our variance last week for a proposed generator enclosure. We’re here tonight to seek approval from the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. No changes in your plans based on the review by the ZBA? MR. POTTER-There’s going to be no changes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We did look at this obviously before. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-It’s pretty straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We actually do have a public hearing on this application tonight. Is there anyone that wanted to comment on Stewart’s Shops generator shed? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. No changes to the project as a result of our forwarding the recommendations and the review by the ZBA. If there’s no discussion or comment from the Board, we’ll entertain a motion. MR. DIXON-Steve, can I just ask a quick question since I wasn’t here last week. MR. TRAVER-Yes, sir. MR. DIXON-Was there any discussion regarding additional lighting or anything associated with this? MR. TRAVER-I believe in their proposal they stated there will be no changes to the lighting. MR. DIXON-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Good question. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 50-2020 STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a site plan modification to place a 280 sq. ft. generator shed at rear of property, relocating the 10’ x 10’ shed to one parking space. The site has an existing 4,929 sq. ft. building and a 2,560 sq. ft. fuel canopy – no changes are proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 11/17/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 11/18/2020; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/24/2020 and continued the public hearing to 11/24/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/24/2020; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 50-2020 STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24 day of November 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. POTTER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And next on our agenda, also under Old Business, is Peter Sheehan, Site Plan 51-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PETER SHEEHAN (CO-TRUSTEE). AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN IRREVOCABLE TRUST. ZONING: WR. LOCATION; 31 BIRCH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 224 SQ. FT. SUNROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME OF 4,279 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. THE NEW FLOOR AREA PROPOSED IS 4,503 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW OPEN DECK OF 224 SQ. FT. ABOVE THE SUNROOM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-080, 179-3-040, 179-6- 065, 179-6-050, AND 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 76-2012 DEMO AND REBUILD SF HOME, 89508-2020 REPLACE DOCK, AV 42-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .83 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-20. SECTION: 179-4-080, 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050, 179-13-010. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant is proposing a 224 square foot sunroom addition. The Zoning Board granted the relief. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins with Pete Sheehan. Exactly what we discussed last week. Nothing was changed in accordance with our discussions with the Zoning Board and we did get our variances, and I’ll turn it over to the Board for comments and questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We did look at this, obviously, when we did our review before going to the ZBA, but we’ll open it up for questions or comments from members of the Planning Board. We talked about the roofline as I recall. We also have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this application, Site Plan 51-2020? I’m not seeing anyone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments either. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. All right. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any follow up questions, concerns from members of the Board? I’m not seeing any. All right. I guess we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 51-2020 PETER SHEEHAN ( CO-TRUSTEE) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a 224 sq. ft. sunroom addition to an existing home of 4,279 sq. ft. floor area. The new floor area proposed is 4,503 sq. ft. The project includes a new open deck of 224 sq. ft. above the sunroom. Pursuant to Chapter 179-4-080, 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) 179-3-040, 179-6-065 and 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 11/17/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 11/18/2020; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/24/2020 and continued the public hearing to 11/24/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/24/2020; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 51-2020 PETER SHEEHAN (CO-TRUSTEE); Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 24 day of November 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/24/2020) MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So that completes our agenda for tonight, and you should know, I think I mentioned last week, or Laura did, that next month is going to be a bit of a payback because we have quite a lengthy agenda during the month of December, and also please bear in mind that our annual meeting for the th Planning Board is December 17, and all of the officers, Chris and Dave and myself, are happy and interested in serving for at least one more year. MR. DEEB-That’s if they are happy also, if the rest of the Board’s happy. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, yes. That was going to be my second point is that you might recall that we did change the by-laws. So the current serving officers being willing to serve again are automatically placed in nomination, but it will be open to nominations from the floor, and that will occur Thursday, December th 17. It’s a month where we have a meeting on a Tuesday and then a meeting on a Thursday. MR. MAGOWAN-Do we have to wait until then even though we have a busy December? MR. TRAVER-That’s according to the by-laws. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m very happy. I think we had a very good year considering that we didn’t see each other for about half of it. MR. TRAVER-We did, although it’s not over. We’ve still got two more meetings to go. Anyway, that’s all I had, other than to say thanks everybody, and Happy Thanksgiving and we’ll be back together next month, and if there’s no further business, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 2020, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon: th Duly adopted this 24 day of November, 2020, by the following vote:: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 14